Due to the possibility of transcription errors, the official FedBizOpps announcement takes precedence over this transcription in any disagreement between the two. The transcription is provided for your convenience only.

 

 

 
General Information

Document Type: Modification to a Previous Presolicitation Notice
Solicitation Number: BAA02-16
Posted Date: Sep 09, 2002
Original Response Date: Mar 28, 2003
Current Response Date: Mar 28, 2003
Original Archive Date: Mar 28, 2004
Current Archive Date: Mar 28, 2004
Classification Code: A -- Research & Development

Contracting Office Address

Other Defense Agencies, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Contracts Management Office, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203-1714

Description

This modification to BAA 02-16 outlines the adversary team (Red Team) requirements for the validation plan and final demonstration of the Survivable JBI architecture described in the original BAA. Proposals submitted for this effort must be submitted in time to reach DARPA by 4:00 PM (ET) Friday, September 27, 2002, in order to be considered during the initial Red Team proposal evaluation. Amendments to both the FedBizOpps announcement and the Proposer Information Pamphlet (PIP) are provided in the following paragraphs. Organizations on teams awarded contracts for the Design Phase of this program will not be considered for this Red Team role. The PROGRAM SCOPE section of the BAA is amended to include the following paragraph: An independent Red Team will be selected for the duration of this program. This team will participate in the design phase by providing an assessment of the design factors by identifying weaknesses, flaws and ways and means of attacking the proposed architectures. This will include identifying single points of failure in the architecture, residual vulnerabilities, and developing attack trees and validating the degree of difficulty of exploiting branches of the attack tree. The Red Team will participate in "White Board" sessions with the designers, and participate with a Blue Team in developing Rules of Engagement for the final demonstration scenario. One award up to $650K is expected to be made for the Red Team effort. The BACKGROUND section of the PIP is amended to include the following sentence: One award is expected to be made for an independent Red Team effort that will span both phases and conclude with the sustained attack of the final demonstration. Award for this effort is expected to be up to $650K. The PROGRAM SCOPE section of the PIP is amended to include the following sentence: As part of the assessment, an independent Red Team will evaluate factors addressed by the competing architectures and the effectiveness of the resultant approaches. The PROGRAM PHASE DESCRIPTIONS section of the PIP is amended to include the following paragraph: An independent Red Team will be selected for the duration of this program. DARPA expects to make one award up to $650K for this effort. This team will participate in the design phase by providing an assessment of the design factors by identifying weaknesses, flaws and ways and means of attacking the proposed architectures. This will include identifying single points of failure in the architecture, residual vulnerabilities, and developing attack trees and validating the degree of difficulty of exploiting branches of the attack tree. The Red Team will participate in "White Board" sessions with the designers, and participate with a Blue Team in developing Rules of Engagement for the final demonstration scenario. This team will attempt to deny, disrupt, degrade or otherwise harm mission critical functionality of the JBI by conducting a prolonged, determined cyber attack during the final demonstration. The GENERAL INFORMATION section of the FedBizOpps notice and the EVALUATION AND FUNDING PROCESSES section of the PIP are amended to include the following paragraph: For evaluation purposes, a Red Team proposal is the document described in PROPOSAL FORMAT Section IV (see below). Other supporting or background materials submitted with the proposal will be considered for the reviewer's convenience only and not considered as part of the proposal. Evaluation of Red Team proposals will be accomplished through a scientific review of each proposal using the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of relative importance, as follows: (1) Offeror's Capabilities and Related Experience: The qualifications, capabilities, and demonstrated achievements of the proposed principals and other key personnel must be clearly shown. (2) Overall Technical Approach: The overall methodology, from vulnerability and threat identification and assessment, attack tree development and design evaluation to scripting attack options must be clearly identifiable. (3) Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA mission. The offeror must show how this effort will either prove or disprove the claims made for the survivable architecture. (4) Cost Realism: The overall estimated cost to accomplish the effort should be clearly shown as well as the substantiation of the costs for the technical complexity described. The PROPOSAL FORMAT section of the PIP is amended to include the following paragraphs: Section IV. Detailed Proposal Information for Red Team Proposals. The administrative section of the proposal will follow the guidelines of Section I of the PIP. Excluding the Administrative section, the Cost section and resumes, proposals shall not exceed ten pages in length. The detailed proposal should be formatted as follows: A. Proposal Roadmap addressing the main goal of the effort, main elements of the proposed approach, nature of expected results, criteria for evaluating progress and the cost of the proposed effort. B. Technical Approach providing detailed description of technical approach used to achieve the main goal of the effort. C. Plainly written Statement of Work outlining the scope of the effort and citing specific tasks to be performed and specific contractor requirements. D. Schedule and Milestones. (See same named paragraph in original PIP instructions) E. Deliverables Description. (See same named paragraph in original PIP instructions). F. List of Capabilities and Key Personnel. (See same named paragraph in original PIP instructions). (Resumes of key personnel will not be included in the page count). G. Description of facilities that would be used for this proposed effort. (See same named paragraph in original PIP). H. Cost by task. This should be an accounting to a level detailed sufficiently for a thorough analysis. Should include a breakdown into accounting categories and equipment for each phase. (Cost section will not be included in the page count). I. (See original PIP instructions, mandatory paragraph M. under detailed proposal information.)

Original Point of Contact

Jaynarayan Lala, Program Manager, DARPA/ITO, Phone none, Fax 703-522-7161, Email none

Current Point of Contact

Jaynarayan Lala, Program Manager, DARPA/ITO, Phone none, Fax 703-522-7161, Email none